Talk:Murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom/Archive 5

Allegations of mutilation[edit]

Though false rumors is not a good thing, I hardly consider this to be an urban legend by any means; the fact that white supremacists perpetuate mutilation allegations itself does not make it false, just like the devil telling us that 2+2=4 does not make it false. I'll try to find a link ASAP, but I remember when the authorities were deciding which photos to show during the trial, it was pointed out that "from the manner and distance the photos were taken, one could not tell that the photos of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom were human bodies." That sounds like some mutilation going on... Rocky 03:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Newsom was shot in the back of the neck and set on fire. I'd imagine anyone who was shot and torched probably wouldn't look too human after THAT.Simplemines (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recall hearing those words as well someplace. Hope we find documentation for it soon, assuming that it has not been suppressed or denied; sorry, but I trust any 3rd party sources such as a coroner or photographer much more than the Knoxville PD.

The specific allegations made by the white supremacists were that Channon's breasts were cut off while she was alive and Christopher was castrated also while he was alive. Nothing has come out that lend any credence to those claims. No one is saying that these poor kids didn't suffer greatly, because clearly they did. However, to insert the inflammatory and specific claim about mutilation would require an excellent source. Coroner? Absolutely. Photographer? Yes, since any photographer who had taken pictures of the victims would be associated with law enforcement or the coroner's office. If you can find a reliable source to back it up, by all means carefully reinsert the mutilation claims. A ni Mate 03:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an article from 2007 from one of Tennessee's (Knoxville?) local newspapers.

http://www.wate.com/global/story.asp?s=7076724&ClientType=Printable

"Prosecutors say the crime scene photos they use will be the least graphic ones they have available.

In fact, one prosecutor pointed out that in the manner and distance the photos were taken from, "one cannot tell the pictures of Channon Christian or Christopher Newsom were human bodies." - rock8591 20:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not all too well-versed in the details of legal speech, so someone else will have to take it for what it is interpret it for me, and more importantly, if it fits anywhere at all in this article. - rock8591 00:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock8591 (talk • contribs)

The erroneous early reports of dismemberment came from a federal deputy after the arrest of the fugitive suspects who had fled across state lines to Kentucky. The dismemberment reported by local newspapers was that Newsom had been castrated and Christian's breasts had been cut off. Naaman Brown (talk) 11:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why no photos of the murderers?[edit]

I think many people would want to see the murderers on a murder story article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.189.161 (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because no one has been able to provide a free image of the alleged murderers. We have a policy on non-free content. AniMate^draw 00:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This may be true, but it's worth noting that the image of the victims is not free either. As such I have added some fair-use images of some of the convicts. --09:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Expo776 (talk • contribs)

Actually, fair use doesn't apply to the murderers. They're still alive and someone conceivably could take free photographs of them. The same cannot be said for the victims. AniMate 10:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's bullshit. Any image taken by a government agency, for example, can be used. It's a shame a straightforward news story carries so much baggage from people with agendas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.189.161 (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not bullshit. At one point I believe someone tried to get the mugshots from the police in Knoxville but ran into some problems. As the alleged killers are still alive it's not unreasonable to expect us to produce free images. It's policy. As you seem pretty passionate about it, you can always do the leg work and get the photos. AniMate^draw 04:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can hunt down the pictures, by all means, upload them with the proper tags and stick them in the article. Nobody is stopping you. Asarelah (talk) 06:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am mailing a FOIA letter tomorrow 173.56.121.33 (talk) 05:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AniMate is certainly correct that those who tried to post pictures of the perpetrators "ran into some problems", the "problems" being that there are a large number of Wikipedia editors who will go to any lengths to ensure that no such pictures ever appear in the article, for reasons that are well known.Shiresman (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your (thinly veiled) assertion is factually incorrect. You have as much access to public domain sources as anyone else. It's a shame that policy conflicts with your desire to make a point, but things are what they are. No one is stopping you from finding public domain images or obtaining copyright permissions from rights-holders. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 03:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well you're certainly correct that "things are what they are".Shiresman (talk) 00:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the mug shots of the suspects and pictures of the victims were on the page several times, and removed several times. Some folks still posting thought the pictures were "prejudicial" to the suspects. Mugshots are indeed public domain. Even Wikipedia says so (look under mug shot.) You can take the pictures anywhere you can find them, since whoever got the mug shots got them the same way you would, by asking for them. Public domain pix don't become private property if they're published by a profit-making venture. But good luck posting the pix. The same people who kept REMOVING them the first time will keep removing them again and again and again. Simplemines (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Simplemines. Rock8591 (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As am I. It's laughably obvious what's going on here. Haemo, AniMate and possibly some others will never, ever allow the pictures of these men to appear on this page. The reality of this case and of others like it are clearly far too uncomfortable for them. So the pictures will always be deleted. All in the name of combatting people with agendas, you see.

Still, the good thing is that anyone who is interested in the case will have access to this talk page, where they will very quickly be able to see exactly what is going on here.Shiresman (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal comfort levels of editors are of no concern here. The photos should be reinstated. Can someone point out the public domain mug shots? 99.232.219.131 (talk) 06:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems there's a stack here: http://media.graytvinc.com/images/victims-suspects-stack.jpg 173.56.121.33 (talk) 05:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any policy reason to exclude photos of the perps in this article. The issue is (or was the last time I saw images uploaded) the lack of proper attribution and copyright information. I don't think there would be any problem uploading the images as long as they are free (such as mugshots) and properly attributed. Uncle Dick (talk) 01:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is not decidable by assertion because of what anyone wants it to be. The copyright issue is complex. To summarize a number of discussions I've looked at: works by the US federal government are automatically in the public domain but works of state and local governments are usually not (except for Florida), and it is irrelevant whether the material was in a press release or given out free of charge. Some interesting discussion is at Template talk:Non-free mugshot. A FOIL request (not FOIA I think, which is for federal works) might be successful at obtaining copies of the mugshots, but the recipient would just be getting copies of copyrighted images. So unless someone actually has a cogent, evidence-backed reason to dispute that these are in fact copyrighted, the issue becomes one of application of fair use as to our legal ability to include the images, and if that hurdle is passed, one of judgment and weight as to whether we should. Generally on Wikipedia photographs of living persons are not considered fair use because they are potentially replaceable with a free image. I have argued against this is certain circumstances, such as for actresses who are still alive, but a picture of them at 90 years old would be useless since their 20 year old image is their brand. I see no extenuating circumstances here if they are not PD.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't lifelong incarceration pretty much preclude the possibility of (legally) obtaining free images of the convicted murderers? See, for example, the fair use rationale for BTK's mug shot. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There clearly are police "mugshots" of the convicted murderers available. So I added the NPOV tag until that matter is resolved. I certainly can agree holding off the photos until they have been proven guilty, but that time has come and gone. 24.7.26.52 (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Them being "available" is beside the point. The point is that Wikipedia has a policy that must be followed for images of a certain copyright status. There is absolutely no NPOV issue here. If you can find public domain images, or images you can rightly claim fair use for, please add them to the article Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 23:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very easy to see from this article and talk page that a few people have gone to extreme lengths to shape this article to their own opinions. Almost every article i read about a celebrity states their ethnic heritage even though it has nothing to do with them being famous, yet somehow in this article there is not one mention of these animals being black. You delusional editors can try to paint this any way you want but any rational person can see right through all the bullshit. There should be photos of the convicted murders and it should state that they were all black, but it never will because that would be "racist" to some people. Somehow calling a black person black is now a hate crime, yet brutally raping and murdering two people isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.198.138 (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly don't let the facts get in your way! No mention that they are black? You must be reading an article in an alternate universe, it mentions that they are black about a half a dozen times. Dougweller (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A year later and still no photo's of the murderers. Let's face it people, the fact they're not posted is because they were black, and somehow this is racist. However, were the victims black, and the murderers white, it wouldn't matter. the Image could be from foxnews, and the non free content policy would be scrubbed. This is a racial agenda. Black people are not monsters, white people just happen to get in the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.203.181.181 (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The racial element is important[edit]

There is no question that this is a noteworthy topic, a simple Google search confirms this, but you wouldn't know it from reading this article -- especially not from the first paragraph. Murders and carjackings happen all of the time. Wikipedia of course does not have an article for all of them, nor should it. What makes this particular case stand out is the racial element and ensuing reaction on the Internet. Four blacks viciously raped and murdered a white couple. Despite this crime not being officially designated as a "hate crime", there are a large number of Internet users who believe it should have been tried as such and that some sort of conspiracy exists around hate crimes trials, specifically discriminating against whites. Since this is what makes the topic notable, this must be reflected in the article. Since this topic is only really notable for the racial element, the suspects' and victims' races should be mentioned in the opening paragraph.

Regardless of what some opinionated users want, this has become a racial issue. Wikipedia needs to remain objective and reflect this in the article.

--Expo776 (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine that you and others have opinions on that, but putting that opinion into the article is what is not objective. The Reaction part of the article covers this adequately without pushing sides. Your insistence on pushing the racial issue beyond that is a problem. DreamGuy (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i dont feel that these other users are "pushing the racial issue beyond" anything. No one is actually algeging that we shoudl claim that there is an anti-white conspracy in the "hate crimes" system, but the SUGGESTIONS made by many people in the mainstream media and on the Net are part of the reasn why this case is more notable than other crimes commited by blacks against white people. User:Smith Jones 19:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a lot of opinionated racists want this to be seen as a hate crime, that's their opionion, but a racist reaction is no reason for this article protraying it as a racist issue. Dougweller (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thats true, and i am not saying that we should come right out and admit that this was a racist issue, BUT in the section for meia attention we can TALK ABOUT the MEDIAS tendency to portray this as a racist story and any major pundits who have concurred. User:Smith Jones 19:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I was trying to get across. Hence, my inclusion of the quote from Michelle Malkin. I think my changes made the article a lot more honest and comprehensive. It seems some editors here want to remain completely color-blind with regard to this article. That's fine for their own personal view, but is patently absurd when writing an encyclopedia article on a topic which is only notable for the racial commentary it generated. Otherwise, this would just be another murder! Wikipedia does not have articles for every murder. Perhaps I should start an AFD so we can get to why this is notable in the first place (the racial element, perceived by the media or otherwise). --Expo776 (talk) 05:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you've probably gathered, that's a misuse of the AfD process. Dougweller (talk) 06:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the Malkin quote should not have been in the article twice, and doesn't belong in the lead. Someone looking at this article should not go away thinking that Wikipedia is calling this a hate crime. The article makes it crystal clear why this murder was notable, by the way. Dougweller (talk) 09:22, 5 December 2010 (UT::

do you mean WP:LEDE? I agree that it shouldnt be in twice, but if it's the mainr eason thwy this article is notable, as per the WP:AFD (can i get a link to the AFD by the way i cant seem to find it on this page?!) then it should be mentioned publically dont you think? ? User:Smith Jones 17:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no AfD, it was reverted by another Administrator. The only reason for the AfD was to make a point And it is mentioned in the article. Dougweller (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So why exactly is this article notable? Shouldn't that be mentioned in the first paragraph? --Expo776 (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article should be edited so that the comments about this crime made by officials is clearly demonstrated to be lies and nonsense.

For example, consider the comment by un-named "president of Criminal Justice Journalists," who said that this crime would not receive a greater amount of media coverage if it had involved five whites doing the same acts to two blacks. The dragging murder of a black man in Jasper, Texas, by two whites garnered vastly more publicity by the national media than did the murders of Channon Christian and Chris Newsom by five blacks. There are whole orders of magnitude of difference in the degree of media time devoted to these two crimes, and the most likely reason is that the media is far more willing to portray whites as evildoers than do the same with blacks.

Another example, from the same paragraph in the article, arises from the comment of Police Chief Sterling Owen IV, who said that there's no indication that the murders were racially motivated, that it was "random crime." On the assumption that the area where the crimes took place is 50% black and 50% white, the probability that all five of the perpetrators would be blacks and that both of the victims would be whites, in a "random" crime, is two to the seventh power, or one chance in 128. So it's not the way to bet.

If five whites had murdered two blacks, there would be no hesitation about judging the offense to be a hate crime. There would be none of these excuses, none of this going to unreasonable, illogical lengths to bestow benefit of the doubt. The behavior of these officials is as racist as the crime itself was.

How many black victims did these men also murder as a joint venture? I've never heard of any. The Chief's opinion that there must not have been a racial motive because the black perpetrators were known to socialize with whites is also nonsense. It's similar to thinking that someone can't possibly be a burglar because he was seen in similar stores buying goods (and no-doubt casing the establishment for security vulnerabilities). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.100.192.50 (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. In any case, "socialized with white people" has a very specific meaning in this context. It doesn't mean dinner parties, weekends away and rounds of golf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.31.70 (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NOR. We aren't really interested in your opinion or mine for that matter. And this is not a forum to discuss the issue. Articles are based on sources, see WP:RS, not what we might think. Dougweller (talk) 05:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller, the only reason you're not interested in his or her opinion is because it doesn't reinforce your own, and it's people like you who epitomise the irony of Wikipedia's policies regarding POV. You're as ideological as anyone else. Is it any wonder that academia laughs at Wikipedia when it is edited by ideologues and -not- experts in each respective field? Labeling people "racists" for critiquing what is an identified matter of concern given the glaring disproportionate differences between black-on-white and white-on-black crime statistics, and their reportage, is intellectually-lazy at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.162.175.211 (talk) 00:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update?[edit]

There has been a lot of update in this case the past few months, notably the past 2 weeks. Why no updates on this page? rock8591 03:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If you mean the article, the new trials are mentioned, but should have been in the lead as well, which I've fixed. Dougweller (talk) 07:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New cat[edit]

If no one objects I'm going to ad a hate crime cat. --Breachloader (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise, missed this. I object and have removed it as the article doesn't give justification for it. Nor do I think that this episode belongs in a history category. I've removed them. Dougweller (talk) 05:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the removal of those categories. DreamGuy (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the other articles in that category and probably because it is horrifically vague at the moment, I would say that this article does belongs in it.

Looks like a two and two vote. does wikipedia have a tie breaker system? --Breachloader (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Breach, Wikipedia is not a democracy. There has been no serious discussion of the categories, and there is nothing close to consensus in either direction here. The real point here is that you haven't provided any justification for adding the categories, nor have you attempted to show us through reliable sources that the article in fact belongs in those categories. If you can do so, then we can have a serious discussion about it. But until then, the categories cannot stand. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 02:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Logic dictates that if no form of democracy is taking place reaching a consensus is rather pointless. --Breachloader (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Consensus is built on reasoned debate by people knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you are one of those people. If you can provide a reliable source which says that it was a hate crime, then I will be more than happy to give the addition of the category all due consideration. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 02:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So it is a democracy of sorts then? --Breachloader (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus and democracy are not the same thing, because we have to operate according to official policy. A "democracy" would be unworkable as we could very well be flooded with IPs and anonymous users from any given interest group that want to change content to fit their standards of acceptability. The principle of "majority rule" in any given case is only valid insofar as it reflects normative application of existing policies. Consensus is a means of putting policy into practice, not the other way around. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 03:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Davidson's prison information states "life in prison" - sentence my have been converted from death sentence

66.177.84.241 (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link rot: WBIR-TV 10 reports[edit]

Some, not all, of the cites to WBIR-TV 10 reports on this crime and subsequent proceedings and events contain links which are dead. An attempt to work around this issue by searching within the WBIR website gets hits, but the links supplied there are also dead. Several of the more recent cites in the WP article are not afflicted with this problem. Perhaps someone with the time and access to the necessary resources can remedy the problem by providing new cites and/or links which will supply the reader with the necessary verification. NorthCoastReader (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible improvements[edit]

I think this article is excellent overall. I just have a couple suggestions for improvement.

(1) Some of information from the section, "Reaction and accusations of racism," ought to be included in the lead of the article. Aside from their brutality, the race of the parties and scant media coverage are what make these murders notable. The lead does not mention race or the related controversy about media attention.

(2) In the "Reaction..." section, the article mentions "erroneous early reports of dismemberment and mutilations." It would be helpful to explain what exactly was misreported. NB: we might need an additional source for this information (if a reliable one exists). This change isn't as important as change (1), but it's something we could look into. Since erroneous facts were spread, a reader might like to know what is true about the crime and what is not. For example, I believe one of the false rumors was that Newsom's penis was severed. This is one the few places that gets the facts right. Of course, it's not Wikipedia's job to address rumors and misinformation, but here the rumors are part of story and we have at least one source that mentions them as feeding into the public's reaction. Dmcw127 (talk) 04:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 18 external links on Murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080804050916/http://www.knoxnews.com:80/news/2008/jun/25/judge-recordings-can-be-used-fatal-carjackings-cas/ to http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jun/25/judge-recordings-can-be-used-fatal-carjackings-cas

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Non-Neutral POV[edit]

Note that Wikipedia has no problem printing the mugshot of "Brock Turner" but will not print the mugshots of those convicted of this crime. Brock Turner's crime was terrible, as were these crimes. They're both police mugshots. Why the non-neutrality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.148.129.5 (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit war to insert race into the lead[edit]

I have reverted the prominent addition of the race of the victims and the race of the perpetrators to the lead. Please discuss on talk and see if you can get consensus for your additions, User:Bebopchamploo; don't edit war to push them in. See WP:BRD. The crime is not in the least similar to the case of Tawana Brawley rape allegations, which you pointed to in your edit summary the second time you made the additions. There has been no suggestion the motive for the murders was racial, and the race angle (=was the crime under-reported because the perpetrators were black?) is very adequately covered in the section "Reaction and racism". The lead section is for summarizing central facts of the crime, and that ain't one of them. Bishonen | talk 18:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

"There has been no suggestion the motive for the murders was racial" is a reason to leave out the race when whites are killed, but when an armed guy with a lengthy arrest record is killed by police officers the race of those involved is included before there's been any investigation if there was any motive other than self-preservation at all, let alone a specific racial angle? Zaostao (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deal with that article at that article, it isn't a precedent here. Doug Weller talk 06:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for re-editing the article and starting a potential 'edit war'. As you probably realize, I don't edit Wikipedia very often, and when I do, I edit articles about music mostly. I had never heard of BRD, thank you for showing it to me. Now I have a slightly better idea of how things work around here. I was on a Wikipedia article reading binge the other day when I came across this article. After reading about Tawana Brawley and the Duke lacrosse case, two fabricated crimes who's articles prominently list the race of the people involved, I read this article and was struck by the omission of these facts. I realized that I have a Wikipedia account and decided to edit. I'm sorry for stepping on so many toes in the process. To respond to your assertion that race 'ain't one of' the 'central facts of the crime', I don't think the perpetrators picked the two victims based on their age, yet those facts are listed in the lead section, imply that they are 'central facts of the crime'. But it doesn't really matter, it seems like the community likes this article just the way it is. I hope this is the place you meant when you told me to weigh in on the talk page thread. Thanks. Bebopchamploo (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have blanked a comment from an IP on a racist crusade. (It remains in the history if anybody wants to read it.) Dear 24.90.121.4, it's considered proper here to create an account (or to log in to the account you have) and take ownership of your posts if you wish to express bigotry. Bishonen | talk 07:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

(Note: I have restored a comment censored by a registered user on a racist crusade.)

“There has been no suggestion the motive for the murders was racial…”

There have been many such suggestions, because the rape-torture-murders obviously were racially motivated, but Wikipedia’s ruthless race warriors always censor such suggestions, even from the talk page!

“But it doesn't really matter, it seems like the community likes this article just the way it is.”

Actually the community hates this article, but the aforementioned ruthless race warriors have ruined it, and run off anyone who tried to improve it. In fact, due to the aforementioned racial motivations (of both the killers and the race warriors), they were very angry that this article was ever started, and retaliated against the original editor by harassing, and eventually banning him.24.90.121.4 (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC) 2604:2000:9046:800:20AB:51E:8517:9A6B (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"...it's considered proper here to create an account (or to log in to the account you have) and take ownership of your posts if you wish to express bigotry. Bishonen | talk 07:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC). [reply]

What a ludicrous, bigoted statement! First, there is no requirement to register, in order to edit. Second, your statement violates so many WP rules that it's hilarious. But you obviously consider yourself above all rules. Third, you would not limit your misconduct in the least, were I to register. 2604:2000:9046:800:20AB:51E:8517:9A6B (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I rarely disagree with Bishonen, but I don't mind if bigots don't have registered accounts. It's true, though, that unregistered bigoted editors give IPs a bad name. Then again, registered bigots give us all a bad name. What to do? Oh, I know: refrain from posting bigoted stuff. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why a Federal Charge?[edit]

Boyd was convicted of crimes by a Federal Court. The article should make it clear why. Carjacking? Accessory to murder? Why are these Federal crimes? 70.170.63.78 (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boyd's crimes involved crossing state lines. Apparently the feds had more interest prosecuting him on federal charges than the state had in prosecuting him on state charges. The state had enough to handle with the other suspects more directly involved. --Naaman Brown (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent bias in this article![edit]

Truly, we have thrown WP:NPOV completely away! :) --140.32.16.51 (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is pointless if you do not point out what you mean. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures of murderers?[edit]

Is there a reason why they are not shown in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.184.18 (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want to give them publicity? Doug Weller talk 19:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They're available on Infogalactic here: https://infogalactic.com/info/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.112.21 (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The pictures of those disgusting criminals are shown in nearly all news articles covering the event. I think we should show the pictures so their faces are forever associated with that act of evil they committed. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, that's not a good reason. As for the IP's comment, Infogalactic is an alt-right website created by Vox Day and a bad example. Doug Weller talk 06:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Doug Weller their photographs were routinely shown by the local newspaper (The Knoxville News Sentinel). There were constant updates about the trial by reporter Jamie Satterfield, whose reporting probably constitutes the bulk of all reporting about this saga. I don't understand your argument that showing their photos gives them "publicity." It's also a bit odd for you to ascribe RIGHTGREATWRONGS to my comment. There is nothing to RIGHT as they were convicted of their crimes. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IIn any case, "so their faces are forever associated with that act of evil they committed." means to me that your reason is not that it would be encyclopedic but you want to use the article to as you say associate their faces etc. But no one or at least no one who wasn't closely involved is ever going to remember their faces. Although I guess they might remember they were black. Which would be a terrible reason to include their faces of course. It would certainly publicise that fact. Doug Weller talk 14:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that, but I don't have any other way to describe what they did (from our article He had been bound, blindfolded, gagged, and stripped naked from the waist down. He had been shot in the back of the head, neck, and back, and his body had been set on fire. According to the testimony of the Knox County Acting Medical Examiner at the trial of Eric Boyd, Newsom was sodomized with an object and raped by a person. and Christian died after hours of torture, suffering injuries to her vagina, anus, and mouth in repeated sexual assaults. Bleach was poured down her throat and used to scrub her body while she was still alive in an attempt by her attackers to remove DNA evidence. She was bound with curtains and strips of bedding, her face covered with a trash bag, and her body stashed in five large trash bags. These were placed inside a residential waste disposal unit and covered with sheets.) than an act of pure evil. If I understand your hesitation to include their photographs correctly, you do not want to draw attention to the fact the murderers were black? Mr Ernie (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

After the protest, a Black syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts dismissed claims that the crime was underreported, citing a 2001 report that found "Blacks and Latinos are underrepresented in news media as victims of crime and significantly overrepresented as perpetrators." Pitts added that he was "unkindly disposed toward the crackpots, incendiaries and flat-out racists who have chosen this tragedy upon which to take an obscene and ludicrous stand" and that they and any other white Americans who felt victimized by the perceived under reporting could "cry me a river."[53]

I think this portion shows a POV. The report Pitts mentions is from an advocacy group and I don't think it would be worthy of using as a source of information. I also don't think he's quoting the report, but a blurb about the report on their website. In this case it appears we're using a quote from a columnist to get this POV into Wikipedia. This is really dubious especially since there are many conflicting reports on this subject. 24.14.88.182 (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~ Agreed. Who gives a fuck about what some anonymous columnist has to say. LOTS of columnists have things to say, the only reason to include this one is because he's black, in order to perpetuate the notion that there either was or was not some racial component to this case. The facts, and the statistics either stand on their own or they do not. Wikipedia does not practice affirmative action with statistics, elevating them and the columnist that thinks they are important to a more prominent status, simply because (only because) that columnist is black. The underlying "racial" component is whether or not "reverse racism" played a role in how the media reported the story. The race of the columnist that argues against this is completely irrelevent, as is the "mixed race" nature of the jury. Also the garbage company buying the house and destroying it does not belong in the "racism" section. That's just stupid.66.25.171.16 (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pitts was a black columnist for a Seattle WA West Coast newspaper reacting to a report of a white supremacist protest. The reaction in Knoxville TN was to politely ask the protesters to leave; the crimes of carjacking, rape, torture and murder were sufficient and hate crime charges were unnecessary and a distraction. I think the coverage of Pitts' outraged reaction to the white supremacists' attempt to use this crime for their agenda is not fairly represented and may well be undue emphasis anyway. --Naaman Brown (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably off-topic, but the media commentary of "failure" to charge hate crimes against the defendants demonstrates ignorance of when hate crime charges are appropriate. Here there were charges of capital offenses and the case was going to trial. Federal hate crime charges should be reserved for cases where for reasons of bias or prejudice against the victim or for the perpetrator, criminal charges are not being pursued against the perpetrator. At the time I encountered a notable reliable source that made the point. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While the carjacking did not start out racially motivated, testimony of Letalvis Cobbins indicates that it took a turn when they realized they had carjacked two white people: "Two white people, white kids, this (expletive) fixing to get crazy, man, you know what I mean?"^[1] Arguably, Cobbins' statement indicates that they would not have treated a black couple in the same horrific manner.216.16.132.226 (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Foetal or Hog?[edit]

Christian is described as being both hogtied and found in the foetal position in this article. It can’t be both? ElleBlair (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction[edit]

While the carjacking may not have started out racially motivated, testimony of Cobbins indicates that it took a turn because they carjacked two white people: "Two white people, white kids, this (expletive) fixing to get crazy, man, you know what I mean?"^[2] Arguably, Cobbins' statement indicates that they would not have treated a black couple in the same horrific manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.69.228.190 (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's just your interpretation, and we can't use that. Also see WP:FORUM. The link doesn't work, by the way. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

Location[edit]

How about saying where this took place? 107.72.178.150 (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/crime/2017/08/24/archives-horror-christian-newsom-killings-focus-what-happened-chipman-street/597805001/

[2] ttps://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/crime/2017/08/24/archives-horror-christian-newsom-killings-focus-what-happened-chipman-street/597805001/

[1]

[2]

Allegations of mutilation[edit]

Why no photos of the murderers?[edit]

The racial element is important[edit]

Update?[edit]

New cat[edit]

Link rot: WBIR-TV 10 reports[edit]

Possible improvements[edit]

External links modified[edit]

External links modified[edit]

Wikipedia Non-Neutral POV[edit]

Please don't edit war to insert race into the lead[edit]

Why a Federal Charge?[edit]

Excellent bias in this article![edit]

Pictures of murderers?[edit]

POV[edit]

Other articles[edit]

Foetal or Hog?[edit]

Reaction[edit]

Location[edit]